Posted by BigSm00th:

crawford's also won how many games for the knicks? stop the goddamn bitching and constant peccimism, some of you guys, it gets old after a while. its ok to say a good thing or two about the knicks you know. do you have nothing better to do than to just monitor ultimate knicks message boards and add a negative comment wherever you can. come on bro

+1

I think Mardy could be a great third Guard, backup point. He could start but it would have to be next to a guy like Kobe or Tmac. I never saw Walt play so I don't know if he is as good defensively, but I think he could be a "team" MVP. Kinda like a Brian COx was for my jets under Pacells.

[Edited by - anji on 03-06-2007 5:27 PM]

Posted by seaegg99:

Man you have some serious issues. If you cant see the progress in the Knicks then there really is no need to discus the Knicks with you at all.

Progress will always show when your team quits the previous yr and then the following yr tries to play hard every game. WOW

Dick Barnett had a very unusual shot too, but he made it. That's the bottom line. You never know how a young player is going to develop, but if I had to take a guess, I'd say that Mardy isn't going to be a shooter.

There's a place in the league for players like him who play good d and who play hard and smart. But it's usually not in anyone's starting lineup.

MS dude its ok to like some things, nobody is going to get on your case and call you a sell out. i agree, people in this forum don't realistically judge very much, but the fact that they air on the side of optimism doesn't mean you have to balance it out by being negative on everything and anything knicks-related.

"I hear everyone talking about crawford winning us games, frankly i don't care how many games he has won i would say he hit about 6 big shots to help seal a victory this year, he makes more than he misses but when crawford isn't playing well he usually shoots 3-13, or 5-17 has a number of turnovers and kills the offense. If you don't see the problem counting on a guy that everyone wants to start playing great/terrible every other game, there is no need to discuss anything."

no doubt about it, crawford pretty much makes or breaks our games and with him out of the lineup i'm going out on a limb and saying the knicks are better b/c he's a detriment to the offense when he isn't playing well. that being said, he's hit NUMEROUS clutch shots and won NUMEROUS games b/c he's been on fire throughout, so to only recognize the bad and not good is not "realistically evaluating" jamal crawford, so don't be a hypocrite and do the exact same thing that you call everyone else on.

"everyone is acting like we have some bright future, when Marbury is breaking down, francis is in and out of the lineup, q has to sit out games because of his back and channing, jamal and nate have looked far worse than they did last year......"

to talk about the future and then bring up marbury, francis, and Q is delusional and inane. marbury, francis, and Q have nothing to do with the knicks future.

here is what does have to do with the knicks future:

a) they have one of the top 5 rebounders in the league, and he is in his 2nd yr. you say "Lee needs to work on his jumper and get consistent". what the hell does that mean? in your "realistic evaluation" you fail to mention that the knicks haven't had a rebounder this good since charles freaking oakley, and that the best young rebounder in the league other than dwight god's son howard is on the knicks. is this not promising? are you not excited about this? or will lee only measure up to your standards when he gets "consistent." is double-digit rebounding every night not consistent enough?

b) curry is not a franchise player. he is, however, an absolute beast on the low block who can score with his back to the basket. how many teams in the nba have a guy who can score consistently with his back to the basket? 10? 15? seriously, how many? not many. and the knicks have one, and he is young as well. does he rebound? no. that's why lee should always play alongside him and not this coward frye. does he defend or block shots? no. but he scores, and you need to score to win in the NBA. he's on the knicks also.

c) going back to the point of my other topic, balkman looks like he's going to be another steal in the draft. he hustles, defends, doesn't need the ball on offense. this is an old school knickerbocker, someone who would've fit in great with the ewing teams of the 90s. START THIS GUY OVER THIS BUM JEFFRIES. enough said. jeffries is the worst player in the goddamn association i'm sick and tired of watching this guy's 0-4, 30 minutes nights. he doesn't contribute ANYTHING and looks so timid and afraid to make a mistake. GET HIM OUT. balkman needs those minutes it is imperative.

d) collins doesn't look bad. is he the next clyde frazier? come on, that's absurd. yea and maybe lee is the next dave debuschere. as someone here said, collins hopefully could be another aaron mckie, which i'd love to bring off the bench as a 6th man next yr.

e) this offseason, isiah needs to make it happen. i'm fine with trading crawford, nate, frye, basically anyone other than the 3 mentioned above (and i dont think curry is untouchable either). regardless, any package of nate/frye/crawford i think could yield something of relevance?

and who cares if ron artest is crazy? i certainly don't. sign the guy with the midlevel, bring him back to NY. a starting 5 of marbury, artest, balkman, lee, and curry is pretty solid in the east. if collins continues to improve, plus whatever can be yielded from a nate/frye/crawford package, and things are at least looking up.

i look at it this way MS, the knicks are in playoff contention and its march. when was the last time you could say that? seriously. when? 2001? i don't even remember, i don't think for as long as I've been a member of this board. they have young pieces, isiah's made some bad moves no doubt, but it at least seems the knicks are moving in the right direction.

go knicks
cut jared jeffries
lee is a top 5 rebounder in the nba
balkman looks solid

^the basic gist of my post.

guess i was way off on Mardy's scoring ability... the guy's got game.

Posted by bigbeast:

Frank is a more purer point than Mardy.....Mardy plays better D but Frank, when in shape, is a better prospect.

Frank has better pg instincts with a lil flash, mardy is a blue collar pg.

Watch him play on NBATV now and then post about him.

I watched him play this season on several occassions and he's in shape and he's playing well.

I've seen him play plenty. I have no doubt he is a good minor league player. When he is good enough to play in the NBA then maybe we can argue about how good he is or isn't.

oohah

I like Mardy. He helps add a little more balance to the backcourt and can guard small forwards as well. Still need to work with him on his entry passes and of course the jumpshot but he will be a solid player if he continues to work.

Posted by joec32033:

You could change the name of this thread to Frank Williams and wherever Mardy's name is mentioned change it to Frank Williams and not one post's actual content would have to be changed. We used to say the exact same things about Frankie.

yahtzee.

and i liked frank a little more b/c he was able to orchestrate. there were even comparisons to clyde for him as well (i think even isiah said it).

Frank Williams was a college player, not an NBA player, much like Rumeal Robinson. If Frank Williams could get his shot off he probably could hang on somewhere but he is not able to.

It's weird because he was quite good in college.

I've already seen a lot of things from Mardy Collins on the NBA level that I never saw from Frank Williams. Collins is just a better NBA player plus he plays D.

oohah